Chomsky on current events (pt1)

  • Thread starter fred f and the lot
  • Start date
F

fred f and the lot

Guest
Noam Chomsky on

"The New War Against Terror"

October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio

recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT

Everyone knows it’s the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I just got orders

that I’m supposed to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at this forum was on a

light pleasant topic. It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the

nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So

this time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror.

Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more horrible

as we proceed.

Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk

I’m going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.

The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events

of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant

human toll of any crime in history, outside of war.

The second assumption has to do with the goals. I’m assuming that our goal is that

we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they are against

us or against someone else.

If you don’t accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not be addressed to you.

If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a

good deal of thought.

The 5 Questions

One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit

in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very common assumption

that what happened on September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history. I

tend to agree with that. I think it’s true. It was a historic event and the question we should

be asking is exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the title, The War Against

Terrorism. Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what is

terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has to do with the origins of

the crimes of September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to talk a little about is

what policy options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing with the

situations that led to it.

I’ll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to

bring up other questions. These are ones that come to my mind as prominent but you may

easily and plausibly have other choices.

1. What’s Happening Right Now?

Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People

Well let’s start with right now. I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to

uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New

York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That

was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On

September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from

Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies

to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in

the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the

next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the

demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes

right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers

that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York

Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of

desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long

running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut

the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine.

The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by far, were able to

resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began to resume at a lower level, resume food

shipments. They don’t have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is

hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They then resumed but at a

lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US airdrops, condemning

them as propaganda tools which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to

be quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue. After the first week of

bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else,

that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute

need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will

make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs

falling the delivery rate is down to * of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us

that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million

people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization

dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target,

Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total

capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in

charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions

of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the

major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t

find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a

story about another topic, Kashmir.

Silent Genocide

Well we could easily go on….but all of that….first of all indicates to us what’s happening.

Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of

insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what

will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the

assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few

months….very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind

of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact not even

in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish press or the press in Scotland…that close,

reactions are very different. Well that’s what’s happening now. What’s happening now is

very much under our control. We can do a lot to affect what’s happening. And that’s

roughly it.

2. Why was it a Historic Event?

National Territory Attacked

Alright let’s turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we

are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course,

their victims. Let’s go back…turn to the question of the historic event that took place on

September 11th. As I said, I think that’s correct. It was a historic event. Not unfortunately

because of its scale, unpleasant to think about, but in terms of the scale it’s not that

unusual. I did say it’s the worst…probably the worst instant human toll of any crime. And

that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more drawn out that are

more extreme, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it’s a historic event because there was a change.

The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That’s new. Radically new.

So, take US history.

The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack, or for that

matter, even threatened was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There

have been many…it was common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that’s not a good analogy.

The Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US

colonies not the national territory; colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in

not a very pretty way. This is the national territory that’s been attacked on a large scale,

you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique.

During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the

indigenous population, that’s many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried

out depredations all over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond,

conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several 100,000 Filipinos in the process.

Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the world in ways I don’t

have to describe. But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else,

it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.

Europe

In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because its history is even more

horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically. For hundreds of years,

Europe has been casually slaughtering people all over the world. That’s how they

conquered the world, not by handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did

suffer murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another. The main

sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The only reason that

it came to an end in 1945, was….it had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war

with each other and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that everyone

understood that the next time they play the game it was going to be the end for the world.

Because the Europeans, including us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction

that that game just have to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In the 17th

century, about probably 40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out in one

war.

But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans slaughtering each other,

and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn’t attack Belgium, India

didn’t attack England, Algeria didn’t attack France. It’s uniform. There are again small

exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us

were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The first time that the guns

have been pointed the other way. And in my opinion that’s probably why you see such

different reactions on the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in

many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides. The world looks very different

depending on whether you are holding the lash or whether you are being whipped by it for

hundreds of years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe and its

offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a historic event but regrettably not in

scale, in something else and a reason why the rest of the world…most of the rest of the

world looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or

being horrified by them, that’s almost uniform, but viewing it from a different perspective.

Something we might want to understand.
 
Notice the drop-off of readers between Chomsky Part 2 and Chomsky
Part 3? I guess when people see Chomsky in Part 1 predicting
that America was intending to inflict a "silent genocide" and
murder several million innocent people, they see what an unbalanced
and uncredible source Mr. Chomsky is.

Which is not to say Chomsky doesn't have some valid
points here and there in the speech and elsewhere, mixed in with
his blatant propaganda. But one can only know by going to reliable sources, which Mr. Chomsky is clearly not.

It appears that, I believe, every piece
Fred F shares with us comes from the same site: www.zmag.org.
A one-stop station to get programmed on what to think.
You could call it a cult. It explains why he ran
away from every argument I had with him. You need more
than catch-phrases and Zmag FAQs....

It indicates all the more how well the Australian writer
at salon.com had him pegged.
 
> Notice the drop-off of readers between Chomsky Part 2 and
> Chomsky
> Part 3? I guess when people see Chomsky in Part 1 predicting
> that America was intending to inflict a "silent
> genocide" and
> murder several million innocent people, they see what an
> unbalanced
> and uncredible source Mr. Chomsky is.

i think that seeing something as academic and as long as what was posted would do the same, don't you think? People in general don't really know who he is, or why they should take a good half hour or more of their life reading all of this.

The same thing happens in newspaper articles. They are all written under the assumption that most of their readership will have stopped reading the article by the last sentence, so that's why they are designed in a very top-heavy design of packing all of the broad facts into the opening paragraph, and eventually trickling down to smaller things deemed less relevant.

> Which is not to say Chomsky doesn't have some valid
> points here and there in the speech and elsewhere, mixed in with
> his blatant propaganda. But one can only know by going to
> reliable sources, which Mr. Chomsky is clearly not.

And what are you? Where is your claim to equality for all opinions? Basically, all I've seen you do is hatemonger and propose that people who don't agree shut up. Dont you ever even think to consider that you are exactly like the groups that you wish to see disappear overseas? They are built out of people such as yourself, with a specific idea of how things should be done, with no consideration for anything except their own ideas, and living under the belief that all of their opposition be tossed out.

People with mindsets such as yourself are the building blocks of the Southern Baptist Convention, the neo-nazis, the Taliban, people who ban books in schools, and the communists. The only difference is that you aren't enrolled in any of these groups and have found your own niche. Sure, go ahead and say, "i'm different because i do it for a good cause!" but think very hard. Dont' all of those same groups espouse the same reason? How are you so certain that your cause is any more justified than any of theirs? God certainly didn't ordain you with carrying out the holy war, yet you carry on like you were.

> It appears that, I believe, every piece
> Fred F shares with us comes from the same site: www.zmag.org .
> A one-stop station to get programmed on what to think.
> You could call it a cult. It explains why he ran
> away from every argument I had with him. You need more
> than catch-phrases and Zmag FAQs....

> It indicates all the more how well the Australian writer
> at salon.com had him pegged.




alcatraz.jpg
 
I've concluded that whenever Suzanne desires to expound intellectually, she pulls out one of those industrial sized containers of rubber cement from inside here closet, snffs it for a few minutes, and then begins typing.

> i think that seeing something as academic and as long as what
> was posted would do the same, don't you think? People in general
> don't really know who he is, or why they should take a good half
> hour or more of their life reading all of this.

Yes, only the real intellectuals and those with a true depth of insight can decipher the glimmering truths and nimble insights of one Noam Chomsky.

"That sounds like something Hitler would say."

> People with mindsets such as yourself are the building blocks of
> the Southern Baptist Convention, the neo-nazis, the Taliban,
> people who ban books in schools, and the communists. The only
> difference is that you aren't enrolled in any of these groups
> and have found your own niche. Sure, go ahead and say, "i'm
> different because i do it for a good cause!" but think very
> hard. Dont' all of those same groups espouse the same reason?
> How are you so certain that your cause is any more justified
> than any of theirs? God certainly didn't ordain you with
> carrying out the holy war, yet you carry on like you were.

Was it that generally unfunny comdey writer, Dave Barry, who said the following on how to win an argument:

Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler: This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
 
> Notice the drop-off of readers between Chomsky Part 2 and
> Chomsky
> Part 3? I guess when people see Chomsky in Part 1 predicting
> that America was intending to inflict a "silent
> genocide" and
> murder several million innocent people, they see what an
> unbalanced
> and uncredible source Mr. Chomsky is.

> Which is not to say Chomsky doesn't have some valid
> points here and there in the speech and elsewhere, mixed in with
> his blatant propaganda. But one can only know by going to
> reliable sources, which Mr. Chomsky is clearly not.

oh right there - he cites the New York Times, the Washington Post .. all biased newspapers. Indeed, sources like those are not very credible.
or "the nation.com".

> It appears that, I believe, every piece
> Fred F shares with us comes from the same site: www.zmag.org .
> A one-stop station to get programmed on what to think.
> You could call it a cult. It explains why he ran
> away from every argument I had with him. You need more
> than catch-phrases and Zmag FAQs....

well, I could post other articles in European languages, but I tried to keep it simple for the American readership. The z-mag articles also don't require me extensive typing effort. I'm lazy.

> It indicates all the more how well the Australian writer
> at salon.com had him pegged.

Oh sure ... your babbling is acknowledged.
 
> oh right there - he cites the New York Times, the Washington
> Post .. all biased newspapers. Indeed, sources like those are
> not very credible.
> or "the nation.com".

I used the NY Times to support some facts, as Mr.Chomsky and most
everyone else does. (Came in handy when you recently said,in memorably spastic fashion, that I had my facts wrong. Of course you turned silent after the facts revealed otherwise.)

No such thing as an unbiased newspaper. I try and consult
papers respresenting the full political spectrum. I'm a regular
reader of zmag as well,even though it's mostly a cult of loonies. They have pieces by Edward Said, an insightful man I had the pleasure
of meeting at my law school a year ago.

> well, I could post other articles in European languages, but I
> tried to keep it simple for the American readership. The z-mag
> articles also don't require me extensive typing effort. I'm
> lazy.

So you don't think you have a rather black and white view of the world?
 
> i think that seeing something as academic and as long as what
> was posted would do the same, don't you think? People in general
> don't really know who he is, or why they should take a good half
> hour or more of their life reading all of this.

Possible. But the speech does have a clearly and majorly erroneous
speculation right off the bat, an apparent consequence of sheer
hatred and profound misunderstandings leading him astray. Something which has became quite the norm for Mr. Chomsky in recent years.

Chomsky has some valid points about dark episodes in America, and I urge people to look into them more, from more reliable sources, even though they won't like what they discover. But he is a propagandist presenting information in a very unbalanced manner with an extreme anti-American agenda, and ought to be read with that in mind. And, having attended a talk by him, I know firsthand how cult-like some of his following is.

> And what are you?

Just someone posting his opinions for people to read or not to read.

>Where is your claim to equality for all
> opinions?

What does this mean?

> Basically, all I've seen you do is hatemonger and
> propose that people who don't agree shut up.

Evidence?

Hatemonger? Aren't you the person who, when witnessing
Americans in the wake of an atrocity inflicted upon them,
saw "a nation of slackers and complainers" uniting?
Struck me as rather cold, heartless, and hateful.

To the contrary of asking the people who hold opinions I
either disagree with or hate to shut up, I've clearly
ENCOURAGED them to tell the world MORE. What better way
to nip them in the bud?
I've created entire threads for the sole purpose of bringing
them back out of the woodwork. If I had the power, I'd
give you nutjobs a prime time network TV hour. Tell us all
about your conspiracy theories, please!

Your charges don't hold up in court, and on the hatemongering
charge you appear to be a hypocrite.

(I do absolutely despise Margitrichert, however.)

>Dont you ever even
> think to consider that you are exactly like the groups that you
> wish to see disappear overseas?

Nope.

And I wish them to disappear. So far, you're not unambiguously
on the record wishing the same.

>They are built out of people
> such as yourself, with a specific idea of how things should be
> done, with no consideration for anything except their own ideas,
> and living under the belief that all of their opposition be
> tossed out.

I was exposed to your meanderings into fantasyland in past threads,
such as when you told me I view Afghans as "cockroaches" deserving
extermination, which I found particularly offensive (funny how there was no happiness from you at the liberation of Afghans from
the Taliban, only a rather negative reaction...).

Now you tell me I want dissenters "tossed out." I support
nearly absolute First Amendment rights, so that's quite
amusing to me. Countering views I disagree with or hate is simply me exercising my right to speak freely. It's true I'm unwilling
to automatically respect every opinion.

The only person on this board who is on record advocating thought policing is Grim O'Grady.

> People with mindsets such as yourself are the building blocks of
> the Southern Baptist Convention, the neo-nazis, the Taliban,
> people who ban books in schools, and the communists. The only
> difference is that you aren't enrolled in any of these groups
> and have found your own niche. Sure, go ahead and say, "i'm
> different because i do it for a good cause!" but think very
> hard. Dont' all of those same groups espouse the same reason?
> How are you so certain that your cause is any more justified
> than any of theirs? God certainly didn't ordain you with
> carrying out the holy war, yet you carry on like you were.

I'm sorry most everything you have written on current events
has been mostly wrong. It's okay. These are new times. Lots
of people made the same mistake. I'm wrong a lot too.
Why not re-examine your thinking instead of being such a
reactionary?
 
> I used the NY Times to support some facts, as Mr.Chomsky and
> most
> everyone else does. (Came in handy when you recently said,in
> memorably spastic fashion, that I had my facts wrong. Of course
> you turned silent after the facts revealed otherwise.)

facts proved otherwise?
Oh boy - that was a serious proof - you remember? Someone saying freezing fonds wasn't the only way of fighting OBL - huh, we know.
And saying that the CIA traces fonds doesn't equal freezing them. The CIA traces funds of the IRA as well, Hamas and so on. And doesn't freeze them (except for Hamas, which is likely to change).

And a top priority under Clinton? You remember he was president from 93 til 2001. He got interested in Afghanistan only since 1998. If it was a priority, it was only to get Osama, and you can't seriously claim it has even been a priority for the duration of his office.
And you do remember that the article you quoted explicitly said that the targets for tracing were not well chosen? You know why, I hope.
Insufficient intelligence - because of lack of specific interest in the preceding years.
And, well, you could be right in one way: the oil was a priority.
But that's not quite what you meant ?

> No such thing as an unbiased newspaper. I try and consult
> papers respresenting the full political spectrum. I'm a regular
> reader of zmag as well,even though it's mostly a cult of
> loonies. They have pieces by Edward Said, an insightful man I
> had the pleasure
> of meeting at my law school a year ago.

Many people use the WP, NYT as sources. But some don't have the capacity to see what's biased info, and what's indeed more factual.
Quoting from zmag redresses the balance on this board. I don't ask you to take it literally either. You only presented facts that spoke for you - allow me the same liberty.

> So you don't think you have a rather black and white view of the
> world?

And you don't think you have a rather simplistic view of the world? "they bombed Afghanistan back out of the stone age" ... so you'll be there on holiday next summer?
Enjoy the cluster bomb party. Let's see first how the United Front will be handling the situation, with the 200 UNO soldiers ... before making such "insightful" remarks.
 
> facts proved otherwise?
> Oh boy - that was a serious proof - you remember? Someone saying
> freezing fonds wasn't the only way of fighting OBL - huh, we
> know.

You said no one tried to freeze bin Laden's funds previously, and the quoted hard news story from the NY Times said otherwise. The USA Today opinion piece was added merely to call into question your
claim that such tactics "generally work," which by coincidence was in that day's edition of the paper the day I made that post. I didn't prove you wrong on that point, I simply disagreed. I continue to believe nothing short of physically removing the Taliban and ripping
apart the terrorist network would have been enough.

> And a top priority under Clinton? You remember he was president
> from 93 til 2001. He got interested in Afghanistan only since
> 1998. If it was a priority, it was only to get Osama, and you
> can't seriously claim it has even been a priority for the
> duration of his office.

Well, there is a troubling (for Clinton) Vanity Fair piece coming out which might make me revise my view a bit. I don't know yet.
But bin Laden was a top concern of Clinton's for his final years
in office. It was from him that I first learned of the Taliban.
I'm not sure it was only to get Osama either. I know Hillary
Clinton was upset over the situation of Afghan women,
for example, and Clinton made speeches commenting on their
oppressive nature. This indicates they wanted to see change there,
and were working on policies.

> Many people use the WP, NYT as sources. But some don't have the
> capacity to see what's biased info, and what's indeed more
> factual.
> Quoting from zmag redresses the balance on this board. I don't
> ask you to take it literally either. You only presented facts
> that spoke for you - allow me the same liberty.

> And you don't think you have a rather simplistic view of the
> world? "they bombed Afghanistan back out of the stone
> age" ... so you'll be there on holiday next summer?

No. There's a considerable road to travel from emergance back out
of the stone age to a democratic government. Unfortunately I don't
believe there will be democracy, or even a decent quality of life, in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. But nothing could be worse for the Afghan people than the Taliban, and whatever government they have next will not be a threat to the outside world. Phase one is a success.

And this doesn't mean I will support whatever phases come next.
I shall wait and see.
 
> You said no one tried to freeze bin Laden's funds previously,
> and the quoted hard news story from the NY Times said otherwise.

Well, again, there was 'tracing' but hardly any freezing. And the freezing that happened was allowed by the UN Resolution of 2000 (res. 1333) on Afghanistan. But it did target the Taliban first, and not Bin Laden specifically. The companies and ties with the Boston area, for example, were all left untouched. They aren't now.
And OBL's money making companies are not so much inside the USA; it does seem as though Clinton did something, without it having much effect, but was more concerned about having OBL killed by covert (non American) operatives. That has been the main goal.

> The USA Today opinion piece was added merely to call into
> question your
> claim that such tactics "generally work," which by
> coincidence was in that day's edition of the paper the day I
> made that post. I didn't prove you wrong on that point, I simply
> disagreed.

OK. But you can check the site "smart sanctions" on how these thigns can be made effective if vigourously pursued.
My criticism against Clinton is that he didn't take all the legal measures he could have taken.
And it's not hard to fathom why - the intelligence on the financial network of OBL was incomplete.

> I continue to believe nothing short of physically
> removing the Taliban and ripping
> apart the terrorist network would have been enough.

I'm not so sure. Targeted actions at top leaders of the movement could have toppled it. Stopping Pakistan's assistance could have seriously weakened it.
The Taliban are mostly warriors - it's no surprise that their political leadership comes from Al Quaeda and the previous muhjaheddin fighters, the Taliban themselves are military trained, not politically. And certainly no experts at doing politics in Afghanistan.
The hardest part wouldn't have been the taliban, but Al Quaeda. And the hardest and most deadly part of Al Quaeda, alas, is probably "sleeping" in western countries. And they need cash and money.

> Well, there is a troubling (for Clinton) Vanity Fair piece
> coming out which might make me revise my view a bit. I don't
> know yet.
> But bin Laden was a top concern of Clinton's for his final years
> in office. It was from him that I first learned of the Taliban.
> I'm not sure it was only to get Osama either. I know Hillary
> Clinton was upset over the situation of Afghan women,
> for example, and Clinton made speeches commenting on their
> oppressive nature. This indicates they wanted to see change
> there,
> and were working on policies.

that's true. But the problem is that they changed their policy rather late, under domestic pressure.

> No. There's a considerable road to travel from emergance back
> out
> of the stone age to a democratic government. Unfortunately I
> don't
> believe there will be democracy, or even a decent quality of
> life, in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. But nothing
> could be worse for the Afghan people than the Taliban, and
> whatever government they have next will not be a threat to the
> outside world. Phase one is a success.

Now honestly, you can only say that "objective one" (removing the Taliban from power) is a success in that the objective has been met.
And while it's very likely that the "government" of Afghanistan won't carry out threats on the world, in all honesty you'll have to admit that even the Taliban never explicitly threatened America (you can't say the same of what they said about the Russians, but that seems to be an Afghan speciality ...). They hosted OBL, who threatened America (for them?). Again, it does seem as if the Taliban (except perhaps Omar) have no control over OBL.
Has the bombing campaign contributed to it? Of course - but you can't sweep its negative effects on the Afghani population under the rug, especially knowing that they will be again the first ones to suffer from the new government if it doesn't live up to its expectations.
And that is somethting the international community has to care about.

> And this doesn't mean I will support whatever phases come next.
> I shall wait and see.

Let me remind you I said 'I'll be looking forwards". And to quote Ibrahim Brahimi, UN negotiator in BOnn, "the problems lie ahead".
Unfortunately, he's right on this one.
 
> Afghanistan won't carry out threats on the world, in all honesty
> you'll have to admit that even the Taliban never explicitly
> threatened America (you can't say the same of what they said
> about the Russians, but that seems to be an Afghan speciality
> ...). They hosted OBL, who threatened America (for them?).
> Again, it does seem as if the Taliban (except perhaps Omar) have
> no control over OBL.

They certainly had enough control to claim that they could have turned him over if only they were negotiated with. So that is a clear contradiction.

By harboring bin laden, the Taliban was a specific and serious threat to U.S. security. They could have asked bin laden to leave numerous times, and even said that they wouldn't because he is a "guest."

The U.S. had even warned the Taliban before Spet. 11th that if they did not allow U.N. inspectors, and would not hand over bin laden, then there could be repercussions.

Saying that the Taliban had no control over bin laden's actions specifically is not the point. Their role was as refuge, and a genral alliance with him. They protected him, as he murdered people, and as they murdered people.

If they would have handed him over and cooperated with the U.S. in allwoing them to seek out Al Qaeda, then that would be good enough. However hey chose not to, and placed the defense of one man over their own citizzens who they have been accussed by humanitarian organizations of using a shields in combat.

However, the Taliban themselves were a problem due to their nature,a and to the future possibilty that they could assist other terrorists if accomodated. They are criminals, and should have been destroyed accoridngly.

This kind of "aw shucks" atttitude you are giving to the Taliban is innacurate and contradicted by your own claim that they could have handed bin laden over, but obviously refused to do so. it is irrelevant whether they could have controlled Al Qaeda's actions or not. Either you align yourself with them or you don't.

Again, this is all irrelevant, for the point is, could Aghansitan be diplomatically engineered to attempt peace, and every step has been made to do so diplomatically, thus far.

The military campaign has gotten Afghanistan to the point that everyone wanted them at, which is broad based talks, and diplomatic discourse. Being cynical or qualifyinng the intitative in terms of all possible failures is irrelvant, because failures of the same sort would have been possible even if dimplomacy to this point could have been reached any other way.

Leave it to Fred to qualify the Taliban's existance, and to assert hints of cynicsim of even the diplomatic intitiative. for we all know that if this point was reached in Fred's imaginative, never specified manner, criticism would be anethema and cynical.

Do you guys get it now. As long as anything postive comes out of an initiative the U.S. takes, it is invalid.
 
They certainly had enough control to claim that they could have turned him over if only they were

negotiated with. So that is a clear contradiction.

Ah - not necessary, you see. They could have rallied against mullah Omar, and ask him to deliver a message to OBL in which they declare that they want to extradite him under the conditions of proof given. That would have been a clear message that he's no longer safe and protected by them.
They could have asked him to give himself up to a Taliban authority - if it wasn't done within a certain amount of time, they could have declared him persona non grata and take their hands of him.

It’s a fallacy to think that they all flock together and that negotiations imply facts rather than goals.

I agree that this hasn't been done, but there's not necessarily a “clear contradiction” to it - you could in principle argue the same about the "newly appointed temporary government for Afghanistan": no one present in Bonn has actual control over the guys who are part in the play; yet they carry out the message to the people involved, and they choose to agree or not.
Definitely not so hard to fathom.

You seem to question the Taliban’s readiness to give up OBL, I don’t have qualms with it. It just isn’t what seems to have happened, whether you like it or not.
The question of whether they actually would have been able to give him up is another matter - but an indication to USA’s secret services; or even ISI, of possible hideouts and escape routes would have been pretty effective.

There are more ways to “hand someone over” than the physical need to do so.

By harboring bin laden, the Taliban was a specific and serious threat to U.S. security. They could

have asked bin laden to leave numerous times, and even said that they wouldn't because he is a

"guest."

News sources reported that the convention of the ulema’s asked to deliver the message to OBL to consider leaving the country. You can regret that no force was used, but you can’t deny the support for OBL was dwindling.
The murders committed by Al Quaeda and non Afghan fighters in Mazar-i-sharif on Taliban willing to surrender are another illustration of the divisions between the two.
And there are other differences. Recall that the newly appointed premier, Karzai, admitted in front of BBC news reporters in an interview that the Taliban may have a role and a function in the new government or the elections; but not the foreign (non-Afghan) fighters, whom he considers to be terrorists. Details to be found at BBC site; or Le Monde.

The U.S. had even warned the Taliban before Spet. 11th that if they did not allow U.N. inspectors,

and would not hand over bin laden, then there could be repercussions.

Saying that the Taliban had no control over bin laden's actions specifically is not the point. Their role

was as refuge, and a genral alliance with him. They protected him, as he murdered people, and as

they murdered people.

So - that's all granted, yet it's not hard to understand that given the defection of Pakistan, numerous mullahs inside the Taliban group were willing to get rid of OBL. ANd as people have reported (and not only from Al Jazeera), the Ulema convention was rocky, to say the least.
It is not the case that under the threat of bombs they wouldn't have been willing to hand him over. The question remains: who's not willing, and what powers do those people still have.
It has been clear from the beginning that mullah Omar will not be fond of giving up OBL; therefore as long as he stays in power, chances were slim.
But as the events have shown, he didn't have that much power over all the different groups. The Taliban largely surrendered without much of a fight. And it's mostly the non-Afghan fighters who didn't feel surrendering. (I agree the case is even more complex in Mazar-i-Sharif, where Dostum is active. But that's another matter).
You can hardly claim that in the last months, the Taliban have been giving a solid and unified image.

If they would have handed him over and cooperated with the U.S. in allwoing them to seek out Al

Qaeda, then that would be good enough. However hey chose not to, and placed the defense of one

man over their own citizzens who they have been accussed by humanitarian organizations of using a

shields in combat.

Well, no, it wouldn’t have been good enough.
The Taliban would perhaps have preempted a military strike, but the question is whether they would have allowed the creation of a new government. Much more diplomatic pressure, both from anti-Taliban groups and from pro-Taliban Pakistan would have been needed, and it’s unlikely that the warlords (NA and others) would have approved.
I still believe that a diplomatic effort would have put much more pressure on Pakistan (and the Soviets) to reconsider their links with the Taliban. At present, Musharraf is doing what he's told by the US, but is hardly taking any real initiative himself. He can hide behind the international pressure on the one hand, and the internal conflicts on the other; but it is rather unclear what his real stance is on this matter.

And yes, the Taliban never cared much about the afghani citizens. (now the humanitarian organizations you distrust come in handy, apparently?)

However, the Taliban themselves were a problem due to their nature,a and to the future possibilty

that they could assist other terrorists if accomodated. They are criminals, and should have been

destroyed accoridngly.

Oh oh. No one contests the fact that some of them are criminals.
Yet, don't rush too fast to a conclusion. The situation is so extremely complex that dichotomies as in good/bad are inapplicable. And if you don't have an evaluation metric in, indeed, absolute terms like human rights, the distinction between "good guys" and "bad guys" will be hard to make.
The commander who took Kabul this time, Sayed Zia Ahmad, a NA leader, was a long friend of OBL (as e.g. Le Monde's correspondent Ourgan reports).
One of the NA chefs, Abdul Rassul Sayyaf, was until 5 years ago spokesperson for OBL and organized several meetings between Islamic fundamentalists (reported in a recent book as well).
People in Afghanistan have a natural ability of changing camp when it seems needed.
And, most striking and terrifying, both Sayed Ahmad and Abdul Sayyaf hate the Americans (their own admissions) and are absolutely against the return of the old king Zahir Shah.
You'll accuse me of sidetracking again, but I just felt it appropriate to point out to you how extraordinarily complex it is.

But you would like to continue to deny that the USA was aware of that before 1997? That they didn't know that asking the Taliban to cut down the drug plants while promising indirect Paki support was a tacit support to a murderous régime?

This kind of "aw shucks" atttitude you are giving to the Taliban is innacurate and contradicted by your

own claim that they could have handed bin laden over, but obviously refused to do so. it is irrelevant

whether they could have controlled Al Qaeda's actions or not. Either you align yourself with them or

you don't.

No it's not. You have a very simplistic view of the relations between AQ and the Taliban, apparently.
Larry Goodson's book would be a recommendation. Do read, it offers a detailed description of the tribal influences that cut across many of the "official" versions of Taliban vs. Northern Alliance.
Again, you treat the Taliban as one massive block - this is hardly close to reality.
And even the CIA or the Special Forces knew that, and have been trying to destabilize the position of mullah Omar.
The points of view of the Taliban you have been putting forward till now are actually only those made public by mullah Omar and his gang.

Again, this is all irrelevant, for the point is, could Aghansitan be diplomatically engineered to attempt

peace, and every step has been made to do so diplomatically, thus far.

Not true. The diplomatic pressure on the Taliban under the real threat of bombs could have been pursued longer, not for the sake of the Taliban themselves, but for the sake of the civilian population, and certainly in order to get a clearer picture of what Pakistan is actually willing to do.
By forcing them into a coalition, I find it very hard to assess their real intentions. Once again, this war has blurred a number of relations and dependencies, forcing people into temporary alignments.
It's at present very unclear how these relations survive the current events, but it seems, as I gather from various reports, that the war has defeated the Taliban as political force, but not the credibility of some of their leaders within different factions of the Afghan political scene.
And if even Karzai openly admits that former Taliban people could be part of a government if elected (that presupposes that they can present themselves), you can hardly ignore that this is not a time to underestimate the chameleon nature of Afghan politics.
The diplomatic options available have been put on hold after Sept. 11, as it was clear that the US didn't want to back any diplomatic intervention anymore. Before Sept. 11, Paksitan was still officially very much friends with the Taliban.
And after Sept. 11. they had to align with the US (both for strategic interest and the moral imperative); a fact which contributed to isolate the Taliban even further and make diplomatic contacts more problematic.
And what will the position of Pakistan be towards the interim government? It's still very unclear.

And while the constitution of the interim government is an intelligent puzzle, but there is as yet little control implemented. Many appointed government members are at present unwilling to even go to Kabul, as long as there is no international force to protect them there.
Again, reports on that are also circulating in English on the web, and not even on extremist sites (unless the BBC is considered to be so).
Many anti-Taliban groups (actually, according to BBC reporter Peter Gresten, all but the major Tajik representation, reject the proposals made in Bonn).
You can find, if you're interested, the text of the agreement at http://www0.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/afghan-agree.htm. and a number of statements of UN negotiator Brahimi.

The military campaign has gotten Afghanistan to the point that everyone wanted them at, which is

broad based talks, and diplomatic discourse. Being cynical or qualifyinng the intitative in terms of all

possible failures is irrelvant, because failures of the same sort would have been possible even if

dimplomacy to this point could have been reached any other way.

And the point is that you don't even dare to consider whether a more peaceful solution for the Afghan crisis and its civilians would have been a viable option?
Sending in US ground troops, for example, who could certainly avoid civilian casualties more aptly than "smart bombs" wasn't considered viable because of the potential loss of American military lives.
That it may have saved Afghan civilian lives doesn't seem to be a priority?
I understand that that's every nation's policy, perfectly reasonable, but to ask the question apparently equals labelling as "anti-American" or "cynical".
Oh well.
You make it seem as if the bombings were the only reason why they finally agreed to meet at a conference. Do you recall any specific attempts to invite a number of people from different Afghan factions under the same amount of international pressure?
Is this a justification you want for the bombs? That they ousted the Taliban and brought together the different tribal groups to make up an interim government?
Don't you fear at any moment that it's precisely the bombing campaign that allowed the fighters to reposition themselves on the field, geographical and political?
I'd be glad, to have international monitors and peacekeepers in Afghanistan, asap.

Let's say that these are positive effects and developments; but they don't justify the bombings on civilian targets, and the sufferings added to the population.
And there's urgence for humanitarian help, distribution of food, and the reconstruction of the country.
And equally urgent, the need to create a stable government.
And I regret that the agreement offers little control mechanisms or coercion.

Leave it to Fred to qualify the Taliban's existance, and to assert hints of cynicsim of even the

diplomatic intitiative. for we all know that if this point was reached in Fred's imaginative, never

specified manner, criticism would be anethema and cynical.

How high is your horse?
You're very easily satisfied, arent' you?
Do you recall that even Zahir Shah, ex-king who's to head the interim government's transition on Dec. 22 has expressed his criticism on the Bonn agreement, qualifying it as 'unrealistic' and not taking into account the weight of some of the belligerent groups (Italian Rome-based newspaper La Repubblica collected his reactions).
And unfortunately, Shah is not the only one criticizing. Even Karzai urges the UN to send in their peacekeepers.

Do you guys get it now. As long as anything postive comes out of an initiative the U.S. takes, it is

invalid.

The agreement reached in Bonn was a UN agreement, sidi. Not a US agreement.
But yes, "everything is always the best in the way it is done". "Progress isn't needed, cos we're fine".
You do realize that this attitude wouldn't even have put the Taliban's crimes on Clinton's agenda?
You do realize that it would have been very easy for me to critize the agreement by saying "oh you see, Karzai is an American afghan, he fled to the USA and now is their puppet".
Which is not true.
This is not about America, sidi, this is about Afghanistan.
And if you want the best for that country, there is no time to relax and be glad with what has been achieved.
You have to be critical if you want to see things improve. People are not diplomatic experiments.
 
Back
Top Bottom